Where is the evidence for evolution?

Dear Percy,Percy: Uh, I did. In the very email you replied to. Which was already a repeat of an earlier post. For the third time, you can try this search at Google:"bacterial evolution" "base substitution"PB: Yep, I did that and I know what I found: more evidence for GUToB.Percy: Some of the hits are examples of base substitutions resulting in new phenotypes, such as this one about yeast:UNIL - Erreur 404PB: Apparently you have better eyes than I have since I couldn't find the example. Please provide the title of the abstract, than I will look into it.Percy: On a more fundamental level, what's to prevent a single base substitution resulting in a new phenotype?PB: You know the difference between phenotype and genotype, I hope.Percy: DNA is merely the encoding for protein production.PB: You should also read Caporale's book. It saves me a lot of reiteration. DNA is NOT merely for encoding protein production. Live reduced to protein production? Selfish protein production, I guess.Percy: Some base substitution mutations will produce the same protein, some will produce a modified protein that does essentially the same thing as the original, and some will produce a protein that changes the phenotype.PB: Changes in phenotype is evolution? I already mentioned that this is the big trick of evo's:
"The problem with evolutionists is that they only have one term for several unequal phenomena: evolution. Change of a nucleotide: evolution. Deletion of DNA region: evolution. Duplication of a region: evolution. Selection against mutation carriers: evolution. Selection of antibiotic resistant micro-organism during permanent constraint: evolution. Changing gene frequencies in populations: evolution. And then they start to extrapolate. If this than also microbe to man: evolution. The fossil record: evolution.
If evolutionism was a science they would have discriminated between the two mechanisms. They don't since it is convenient to point at the one mechanism as proof for the other."Percy: But to return to the original point, whether or not a base substitution results in a new phenotype, if it occurs in a gene and is not identical to an existing allele, then it's a new allele and has increased the number of alleles for the gene by one, ie, new information.PB: Yep, and I already said that N+1 is easy to understand. Hemoglobin alpha chain has over 250 alleles. Histon 2a, 2b and 3 are non-allelic. Apparently the genes are not equally subject to mutations (=NRM). Since concerted evolution has been excluded recently, it shoul be purifying selection? Only if you introduce selection on neutral positions.Percy: It's new information even if it isn't expressed in the phenotype. Another base substitution to the new allele will not necessarily yield the same result as the same base substitution to the other alleles.PB: I don't think we can speak of new information without somebody/something to read/understand the information.Best wishes,
Peter

Apparently, there is not a lot of constraint on the genetics to maintain the wisdomteeths in the MPG. It is obvious that they get easily lost, since you are not the only one. And, I do not think that there is a direct phylogenetic link between you and all the other people that lost the programs to develop wisdom teeths. Nothing evolved here. It is GUToB.Best wishes,
Peter

Percy,In response to:PB: I don't think we can speak of new information without somebody/something to read/understand the information.Percy: If an old allele is information, then how is a new allele not information? If somebody/something can read/understand an old allele, then the same somebody/something can read/understand the new allele.PB: Because the original allele is expressed and regulated. Do you wanna claim that an inactivated gene is information?Best wishes,
Peter

Percy,peter borger writes:Percy: Some of the hits are examples of base substitutions resulting in new phenotypes, such as this one about yeast:
UNIL - Erreur 404PB: Apparently you have better eyes than I have since I couldn't find the example. Please provide the title of the abstract, than I will look into it.My apologies, I may have been more specific the first time I posted the information. Look on page 8, where you'll find this:Quote:
"Based on classical genetics carried out in the sixties the M26 hotspot of recombination was studied. It is created by the single base substitution mutation ade6-M26. Changes in chromatin structure associated with the M26 hotspot were demonstrated.PB: In the sixties nobody knew how these sequences looked like. Now we find underlying recombinational hotspot. It is assumed random mutation. But they don't give proof for that. It is an assumption.Percy: There was quite a lot in your post to disagree with...PB: Of course. Wouldn't improve the discussion to agree with me...., but I think I'll choose to stay on topic and note that you failed to address the signal point, namely that the creation of new alleles through base subtitution mutations represents the creation of new information."Listen Percy, this is utter speculation. Evo's infer this from genetic (redundant) families. And it is a nice try since nobody can check it. However, there are protein families that defy this explanation. For instance, the alpha actinin genes (you have to introduce neutral selection) or the redunant gene family of 8 src-phosphatases. Members of the family can be knowcked out but point mutations are lethal This means that they cannot have arisen through duplication and variation. I made this point before, and it falsifies the evolutinary vision. If you like we can discuss the src family in detail.PB: I don't think we can speak of new information without somebody/something to read/understand the information.Percy: If an old allele is information, then how is a new allele not information? If somebody/something can read/understand an old allele, then the same somebody/something can read/understand the new allele.PB: Because the original allele is expressed and regulated. That is a prerequisite for maintaining a gene in the genome in the evolutionary paradigm. Not in the GUToB.Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 02-13-2003]

Hi Percy,peter borger writes:PB: In the sixties nobody knew how these sequences looked like. Now we find underlying recombinational hotspot. It is assumed random mutation. But they don't give proof for that. It is an assumption.Percy: You keep trying to divert attention from the original point. We weren't discussing whether or not the mutation is random (I know this is a hot topic for you, but that's not what we're talking about right now), but whether a base substitution mutation could cause a change in phenotype.PB: Another example would have been sufficient. Why not Thalasemia? Point mutation in a hemoglobin chain. However, I will spell out your refernce how the phenotype is affected. I bet it is accord with GUToB.Percy: It not only can, which was obvious in the first place, but it has been observed and published in the literature.PB: Okay, I see what you mean.Percy: If an old allele is information, then how is a new allele not information? If somebody/something can read/understand an old allele, then the same somebody/something can read/understand the new allele.PB: Because the original allele is expressed and regulated.Percy: As is the new allele - see the previously mentioned reference where the base substitution mutation in yeast is expressed as a change in chromatin structure. Since a base substitution change can cause a unique allele to arise, and since the allele can be expressed in the phenotype, and since allele's represent information, therefore base substitution mutations give rise to new information.PB: In accord with GUToB rule 3. I forgot about rule and prediction 3. When I read your mail, I was under the impression that you were referring to duplication, divergence and adaptation. It can be demonstrated to be wrong.Anyway, have a good one,Peter

Hi Page,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------PB: Because the original allele is expressed and regulated. Do you wanna claim that an inactivated gene is information?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page: Why wouldn't it be? Unused information is still information.If not, then GUToB better come up with a system whereby huge amounts of information can be generated ex nihilo in a living organsism.PB: It can be imagened that preexisting mechanism are operative to generate new genes. Through editing, reverse transcription and reinsertion into the genome. It already has been described for some trypanosomes. Why not for other MPGs?Best wishes,
Peter

Page,quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Because the original allele is expressed and regulated. Do you wanna claim that an inactivated gene is information?
----------------------------------------------------------------------Dr.Page: Why wouldn't it be? Unused information is still information.PB: Unused is info without selective constraint. You know what happens to that, isn't it? I start to belief that evo's themselves do not understand the ToE.SLP: If not, then GUToB better come up with a system whereby huge amounts of information can be generated ex nihilo in a living organsism.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: It can be imagened that preexisting mechanism are operative to generate new genes.[/quote]SLP: It can also be imagined that monkeys flying out of your arse make mutations happen, but imagining something does not make it real. Like creatons, for example.PB: Even if I give examples you are unable to discuss them scientifically, is it?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: Through editing, reverse transcription and reinsertion into the genome. It already has been described for some trypanosomes. Why not for other MPGs?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------SLP: Because real mechanisms of what amounts to recombination doe snot an MPG make.PB: And you also demonstrate that the MPG may have lost the info. Loss of info is often applied in the ToE, so why not in the GUToB?SLP: I suggest you start anew in your quest, and start by reading for once the original Venter et al. Human Genome article in Science a couple of years ago.PB: I read it. What's your point?best wishes,
Peter

hi Sonnike,Gene duplications occur, i.e they have been observed. You immediately have a redundancy and the duplicated will easily decay. It will only be maintained in the genome in the case of extreme selective pressure (as observed in insects that become resistent to insecticides, and in cancer cells that become resistent to chemotherapy.) The scenario that duplication is followed by divergence and adoptation of new functions is nothing but hypothetical.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear peter,quote:
That's not entirely correct. Genetic experiments have shown
that artificailly duplicating a gene can have phenotypic
repurcussions.PB: That's not in question. Duplications happen and may demonstrate phenotypic alteration within limits. (I mentioned already the duplications observed in resistance). Duplications are included in the GUToB, so I don't see a problem.
Or did you refer to chromosome duplications that have severe repercussions on phenotype? Or something else? If so, please provide the reference.best wishes,
Peter

Hi peter,I meant as soon as selective constraint disappears.
On the other hand you have to introduce genetic uncertainty.Best wishes,
Peter

Hi Page,Page: Indeed, Borger's comments are off base. It seems that, like "non-random", Borger's definition of 'redundancy' is at odds with those in the field.PB: What definition do you use?I have cited a couple of times now a paper that experimentally duplicates a HOX gene. the result is not mere redundancy, the result is an alteration of phenotype.PB: Do you mean the Nature paper by Kmita et al? Please let me know.best wishes,
Peter

Hi Page,PB: I asked you for a definition and a reference and all I get is:Page: I'm sorry Borger - I am going to confine my exchanges with you to one topic at a time. Your evasion/antagonism game succeeded in getting the book nook thread closed, but the information you requested repeatedly - indicating that you had not, in fact, read any of 'my stuff' - was provided.PB: The booknook topic has been closed since you evo-guys were not able to defy the unwarranted 'microbe-to-man' extrapolation made by Darwin. Maybe I am going to open a new thread on it.Page: Ad hoc unsupported gibberish works on creationists. It doesn't seem to have the desired effect on anyone else.PB: Ad hoc unsupported evo gibberish is what you like to hear, I presume. It does not have any effect on how it all came into being.Page: Back up your claims re: Cap and Tob or take a hike.PB: I will soon address the gap between 'Cap and Top'. I will demonstrate that it is not a real gap for the GUToB. Next, I will take a hike (in the Blue Mountains National Park).have a good one,
Peter

Page,You cannot simply let pass another opportunity to show what evolutionism is worth these days. So, make the link where you evo guys rebut my claim that 'now we have discovered that the elements to induce variation within species is preexisting in the MPG, it is crystal clear that Darwin made the unwarranted extrapolation of microbe-to-man-evolution from his observations on dogs, pigeons, finches. (The latter being MPGs in action)'PB

Quetzal says:'But she [Margulis] falls flat as always by pushing her hypothesis beyond what can be supported.'PB: But that supposed to be allowed in evolutionism. Darwin did it, Dawkins does it, so why not Margulis? Evolutionism = conclusion jumping, so I don't see your point.Best wishes
Peter

Hi Mark,In his famous book 'The Origin of Birds', Gerhard Heilmann concluded that 'although birds have several characteristics in common with dinosaurs birds could not have evolved from dinosaurs. His reasons was fairly simple: birds have furculae and dinosaurs don't, and it would not have been possible for these structures to reevolve once they have been lost.' [Unless one assumes a shared MPG, but that would be GUToB]. Therefore, Heilmann says birds have not evolved from dinosaurs.More recently the bird-dinosaur link has been picked up again -- in particular by Jacque Gauthier -- and in fact evo's now believe that the birds are in fact a group of dinosaurs. Among the most spectacular findings of the past few years are perhaps the chinese dinosaurs of the Liaoning region; the dragon birds. They include the Proarchaeopteryx robusta, the Caudipteryx zoui, Sinornithosaurus mellini.An alleged common feature and support of a dino-bird link of these organisms is that they have feathers. Recently, I had a very careful close up look at the original chinese fossils, and for at least 2 (of 5 exposed chinese dragon birds) it is doubtful that they had feathers at all. The other fossils do indeed have feathers but a careful look at the fossils demonstrates that these organisms do not have wings at all. (one of them is pictured with its very long arms swinging from tree to tree like a Tarzan-like-bird-man; talking about imagination)So, if one is to claim that these are the transition forms leading to birds than one has to exclude the possibility of loss of wings, which is much more likely from a scientific point of view. Have a look at the Galapagos Cormorant. If this bird was only known from the fossil record one could take such fossils for transition forms towards complete development of wings (feathers and design are already bird) or did it loose its wings. For the Cormorant it is pretty obvious. Maybe the dragon bird fossils were also fish eating organisms and used their extremities for propelling under water instead of swinging in trees. Who knows?All there is is speculation and biased interpretation. From an evolutionary stance one could take them as transition forms (as you do), however I am not that gullible. I say it is just another MPG.Recently, it was demonstrated that dino and bird embryology is distinctly different, and makes the link even more unlikely (will look up the reference for you).Best wishes,
Peter